• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The transfer thread

Finney Is Back said:
Yes, for better or worse.

Personally I think worse as our backup players are way too inexperienced and not yet ready for much PL football (if we want to be successful anyway). Though, as I have said many times, if we really are taking a medium to long term view, where we're happy to miss Europe for a year, while we build and develop a young squad of talent to get back in the year later when having fewer games but then really being able to have a crack at doing something significant the year after that then great. I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
Probably cost us in the first half of the season. They weren't (seen as) ready for much PL involvement. As they've settled in and gotten more game time I think they've shown themselves to be useful squad players. If they keep developing and increasing their impact this season without having to be trusted to start most games perhaps even more useful. For better and worse, like most things.
 
Finney Is Back said:
That doesn't matter a jot mate. "Signing on fees" are spread across the contract and paid as a 'loyalty bonus' (player forgoes that element if they put in a written transfer request and are then sold but are due their remaining 'loyalty bonus' installments if they are sold without putting in a written transfer request (though typically there is just a negotiation on both sides instead of a written request going in).

When people talk about £100k a week wage (or whatever amount) that is actually the wage and the loyalty bonus element factored in.

IF you give a player a 5 year deal on £80k a week and a signing on fee of £20m, you are basically just giving them £160k a week (and that is what would be leaked by the agent as the player 'wage').
Click to expand...
Yes that’s how I understood it
What I meant was selling a free signing later you would use that to offset their wages to help them go
Say they were owed £3m in signing on fees but they cost you nothing… you pay that to them
 
Gutter Boy said:
I know he's never been the fittest player, but it seems a bit over the top to start calling Grealish names, he's not gone full Andy Reid just yet
Click to expand...
Andy Reid! Who was the other one we got from Forest, as part of the deal was it Dawson? Or am I making that up?
Or am I thinking of tacoface Etherington and Davies?
 
Daveeeeeeeed said:
Andy Reid! Who was the other one we got from Forest, as part of the deal was it Dawson? Or am I making that up?
Or am I thinking of tacoface Etherington and Davies?
Click to expand...

I thought Etherington and Davies came the same summer as Doherty and Gardner. Pleat's finest hour.

I think it was Dawson and Reid that came as a package.

I'll always have a soft spot for Dawson, the great man, but know that the footballer wasn't good enough for what we needed for a decade.
 
Muttley said:
I thought Etherington and Davies came the same summer as Doherty and Gardner. Pleat's finest hour.

I think it was Dawson and Reid that came as a package.

I'll always have a soft spot for Dawson, the great man, but know that the footballer wasn't good enough for what we needed for a decade.
Click to expand...
It was Dawson and Reid, about 15-20m for the pair and the bulk of the fee was for Reid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back